Square One

Square Oneⁱ

There's nothing new under the sun. So wrote King Solomon in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes). And there's part of King Solomon in all of us.ⁱⁱ Molecules travel, and so do ideas. But we are not always equipped to understand those ideas. In recent years there has been an interest in “Bible Codes,” words and phrases that can be “demonstrated” in the Bible if the text is subjected to computer analysis. Whether or not the patterns exist as more than chance occurrences – or whether or not they were inserted for our guidance – we are now equipped to “find” them. They were always there, but our ability to understand and interpret biblical texts has changed.

I hesitate to say that our ability has “improved” because that would suggest that we know more now than our forebears did, and there's no real justification for that idea. What has changed, however, is our outlook. And with it our language – denotation and connotation. Our understanding of “right” and “wrong,” which formerly were based on biblical ideals and strictures, is now governed by modern sociology and science. We have adopted the cant of “moral relativism” in place of holding on to any absolutes. Is that better? Is it more accurate?” That's hard to say, but it's different. Nonetheless, science is the background of our attempt to understand Rabbi Akiba's words.ⁱⁱⁱ We demand scientific proof of everything.^iv If we can't show a scientific basis for an idea, it is obviously false.^v

It all boils down to the longstanding conflict between knowledge and belief. Unfortunately the boundaries are a little blurred. But to try to understand a religious concept we're probably better off if we use belief as our touchstone. Belief is usually part of the vocabulary of the religious, the philosopher, or the magician, although the atheist also has a fixed set of beliefs – generally the opposite of the religious, though no easier to prove.^vi,vii In any event, for the purposes of this discussion, a religious vocabulary and references to religious texts make the most sense.

In order to decipher the Bible, the reader must make some important assumptions. He must, of course, accept it. If he does not do so, no argument based on it will seem reasonable. He must also accept the idea that the language used – and it is sometimes metaphor – is that which was most easily comprehended by the people at the time it was first read. So, for example, references to the farming and the harvesting of oil, and grain and wine – as are found in the fifth of the five books of Moses^viii – are better understood now as references to livelihood, however it is earned. At the time when the words were first used, farming was the major occupation of the listeners and made the most sense to them. Modernizing the text each time there is a change in our situation would lead to chaos, since everyone would have different ideas about the new wording. And it would be historically inaccurate. Better to discuss among ourselves the meaning of terminology that may not resonate with moderns. That discussion may lead to a more complete understanding and agreement.

But most important is a recognition that however hard we try, we cannot understand everything that occurs in this world or in others. For some the lack of knowledge is interpreted as a negation of the reality of what we don't understand, or at best a challenge. For others, there is a recognition that some things are beyond us and must be accepted as they are and according to the understanding provided for us by others. That is especially true in referring to the Bible. However religious philosophers may attempt to rationalize what is there, if it viewed as the word of G-d it must be accepted at face value.

“In the Beginning everything came about through a singularity.” Maybe. But most of us, including me, don't understand this concept. I've tried. I've read about the origin of the universe in several books on cosmology, but no matter how it's phrased, the concept of a “singularity” seems to me to be supernatural. It's certainly in opposition to what I was taught in high school physics which emphasized that everything comes from something. There's no free lunch. But with the idea of a “singularity” this concept appears to be contradicted. And gravity and the other “laws” of physics had to have an origin somewhere.

If, as seems to be the case with the cosmologists, we're stuck with the supernatural, though, “In the Beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” makes as much sense as physics. Perhaps G-d created the singularity. That would be logical for a singular deity – the source of monotheism. And since the Bible speaks the language of Man, a complex physical explanation of the specific mechanisms of Creation doesn't seem to be in order. Man doesn't speak the language of G-d, and Man cannot understand His ways. Our values and His have nothing to do with each other. Job, believing he understood G-d's plan, tried to explain it to others, but was upbraided for believing that he was wise enough to fathom the Divine. “Can one who contends with the Almighty be arrogant?”^ix Job's attempts to comprehend what was beyond him were clearly misguided.

So an explanation of the compatibility of free will and foreknowledge may be interesting, but it is only a description of a possible mechanism for something we don't, and can't, understand. In fact, the two ideas may be irreconcilable or may have no relationship to each other.^x Only G-d knows.

This will surely be viewed as a “cop-out” by those who reject religion. But no more than that of those who use a term like “singularity” and believe that it is an explanation. I can accept the idea that there are some things Man doesn't, and will never know. That, of course, leaves us with Rabbi Akiba's words,^xi unexplained and apparently contradictory.

So what do we do with these two ideas? Where do we go from here? At the end of Kohelet Solomon said it best. “Fear G-d and keep His commandments, for that is a man's whole duty.”^xii It may not answer all our questions, but it's a plan.

Next episode: “All The News That's Fit To Print” – And if you believe that ...

i      Continuation of last week's blog.

ii     The following, although written about Napoleon, applies equally to Solomon. Recycling, which we view as something new, has always existed. http://peterallport.com/molecules.htm

iii    See The Need To Know which appeared last week.

iv    Well not actually everything. If someone espouses some idea about alternative medicine or a particular social theory we're likely to accept it no questions asked.

v     Until gravity was demonstrated and proved mathematically, it did not exist.

vi    Such beliefs are usually based on a lack of scientific evidence. According to him, there is no G-d because the existence of G-d cannot be proved. Of course it cannot be disproved either and all that is left is a belief that there is no G-d. But the religious and the non-religious speak two different languages and neither can understand or accept the position of the other.

vii    Many scientists are among the religious believers, drawing a distinction between the knowledge of science and the belief of religion. Pascal's Wager is an example of a mathematician attempting to use his science to illustrate why he chooses to believe.

viii   See 11:13-17. Similar examples appear elsewhere, but this will serve as a suitable example.

ix    Tanach, The Stone Edition, Mesorah Publications, New York, 1996

x     They certainly are irreconcilable in our rational, “natural,” mindset.

xi    See previous blog.

xii    ibid.: Tanach, The Stone Edition.